Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2018.

Pets in condominiums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK. There's a single sentence in the target section that condos may restrict pets. I think it's really unlikely that a reader who uses this will end up knowing more than they already did. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ground Zero controversy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this isn't the only controversy involving Ground Zero. Raymond1922 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barding and larding[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor redirect, as it clumps two separate if related cooking techniques together. Larding already properly redirects to lardon, while Barding (cooking) points to Bacon as barding is a technique using bacon. A single redirect that groups them together when the individual words have different targets makes no sense. It's orphaned, too. A relic of a poorer earlier form of Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jew York Times[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I don't currently see a need to salt. Besides the hubbub back in 2005, this doesn't seem to be a common source of problems. I have no issue with anyone asking another admin to salt, and of course, my decision not to salt should not at all be construed as license to simply recreate the redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attack/disparaging redirect not discussed in the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The creation seems to have been a bit of a WP:POINT based on the edit summary, but I've not investigated what point was being made where. There was a stub article at this title back in 2005 that explained the epithet, and (subject to WP:DUE considerations that would need discussing) could have been merged to the main NYT article and a redirect targetted there - however it was completely unsourced and deleted at AfD (actually VfD at the time) - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew York Times. If The Mysterious El Willstro (the redirect creator) wants this title to exist as a redirect the first step is to find reliable sources that discuss the term, the second step is to present them to editors at Talk:The New York Times as part of a proposal to add it to that article, iff there is consensus to include it the third step is to write a section of the article that mentions the term, then a redirect to it can be created. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Pure slur, absolutely no value whatsoever. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-neutral redirects have value if they are plausible search terms, and this is not one. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is a recent source (from earlier this year) for the ongoing use of the term in the wider public, outside of Wikipedia: https://aladinsmiraclelamp.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/growing-up-with-the-jew-york-times. Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't coin this term. My point is that it's out there, and we must acknowledge that it's out there. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nowak Kowalski, The Mysterious El Willstro, and Okanzevad: This is actually a plausible search term - implausibility is not the issue, nor (per WP:RNEUTRAL) is the offensiveness. The problem is that we don't have anywhere suitable to redirect it to - there is no mention of the term anywhere on Wikipedia. It is not our job to acknowledge terms that are "out there", our job is to educate readers and if we don't have any content related to their search term we can't do that and should not imply otherwise. This is why I stated in my comment that the content must come before the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider this an implausible search term because it is a satirical misspelling and the referent is clear to anyone who has heard the original term. I'm fine with redirects existing at disparaging nicknames which are not a modification of the target title, this is why we have {{r from non-neutral name}}. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I was searching for something like this it would be to find content specifically about the non-neutral term and/or about why it is being used. I would expect a redirect like this to take me directly to that content rather than having to guess whether it is in the main article (and if so which section), a sub-article or an entirely separate article that deals with these sorts of things for multiple publications. That is the value of redirects from titles like this (c.f. Microshaft → Criticism of Microsoft). Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_12#Hell's_Bible Unless the nickname can be pointed to a specific source, or is discussed at large somewhere, this wouldn't be appropriate to keep here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: a simple google search for the exact phrase shows that the nickname is widely known and discussed - including in reliable sources like [1]. The only problem with this redirect is the lack of a target. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be listed as a topic in The New York Times controversies or New York Times#Criticism if it pertains to a particular bias or controversy on the newspaper. Otherwise perhaps a mention in History of antisemitism in the United States? We don't have Jew York which is what is quoted from that same article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it should if editors of those articles think it belongs there, that's not my point at all. My point is that if it is added then this will be a good redirect to that article or section, but not until then. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: an Urban Dictionary search turns up no results. feminist (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. It is not the mission of an encyclopaedia to perpetuate slurs. SpinningSpark 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spinningspark: please read WP:RNEUTRAL. If we had coverage of this term it would be absolutely appropriate for us to have this redirect to that coverage and us doing so would not be perpetuating slurs. Even without coverage we are not perpetuating a slur by having this redirect - it's offensiveness is entirely irrelevant to its appropriateness. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's not appropriate. It would be appropriate to redirect to an article about the assholes who peddle such nonsense, but not to the newspaper itself. It is not in any way helpful to our readers. Anyone typing that in the search box will most likely want to read about the World Jewish conspiracy, and is unlikely to be interested in the 125 Pulitzer Prizes won by the NYT. SpinningSpark 13:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree the redirect is not useful, but only because there is no coverage at the target. If there was content at New York Times then it would be appropriate to redirect it to that article. This is not and would not be "perpetuating slurs" as you claim in your first comment - your recommendation for deletion is correct but your rationale for doing so is not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • "if...", but there isn't. SpinningSpark 16:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is why I have !voted "delete". But if someone wrote some content for it right now I would change my reccomendation because that is the only thing that is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kimchi Bistro[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from various restaurants, all created by a single editor who was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry in 2011. No edit history that needs to be preserved, and as far as I can tell none of the targets ever mentioned these restaurants. Most are discussed nowhere else in Wikipedia either (The website of Henry's Taiwan is used as a citation for stinky tofu, but it probably shouldn't be, and retargeting a restaurant name to a common dish seems like a bad idea).

"T station" might refer to stations of any of the systems listed at T (disambiguation)#Public transport, but I'm not sure it's worth it to create T station as a disambiguation page, let alone to retarget T-Station there. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. As per nom, seemingly not notable restaurants which are not mentioned in any of the redirect targets. ~ Araratic | talk 08:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

EssilorLuxottica[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We just don't do this here, have soft redirects to arbitrary articles on other language Wikipedias. There is no language that users of English Wikipedia are presumed to speak other than English, so linking to an article in Italian is going to help very few of them. The ones who speak Italian are probably going to look up an Italian company on Italian Wikipedia anyway. I note that the creator of this redirect is the creator of the article on Italian Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Soft redirects says exactly this: "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." Largoplazo (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ahmad Bakhshi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:R2 by Fastily. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article inappropriately moved out of Draft space (clearly not finished and by inexperienced editor, who surely should go via AFC process, so moved it back). Pinkbeast (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkbeast, not sure why you didn't just tag it with CSD R2? {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 04:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partly because my move here was a bit cheeky (see below) and I wanted to check in with other editors as to whether they agreed with my actions. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinkbeast, sure, but the remaining cross namespace redirect can still be removed with CSD R2, and if people disagree they can just move the draft back over. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 17:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no requirement to use AFC (and there are plenty of reasons why many experienced editors discourage its use) but redirects from the main namespace to the draft namespace are almost never useful to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't, but in this particular case... the page is clearly not ready for mainspace and the editor who moved it there doesn't know what they're doing (eg see the previous move). Better to move it back and see if they read their own talk page than to just AFD it, I thought. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_5&oldid=1036306235"